Iran steps up nuclear warhead work, Israel media reports (Reuters)

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by morethanyou

10 years back and forth for Iraq and Iran. IDF will smash them in 3-4 weeks.

They may well can.

If you really believe this is about Iranian aggression and nuclear weaponry, you have my pity.

TheRedneck




posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy
 


Absolutely agree, Israeli propaganda ... nothing more.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


If he thinks that's what this war is all about he has my pity as well. The ignorance of the world is never short of appalling. Take care.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Israel is in-famous for saying what they think the rest of the world needs to hear. Israel is a war mongering hate filled nation. If they had their way,,we all would be nuked back to the stoneage. It makes me want to puke when I think of how this nation thinks their shat don't stink. I am tired of my American tax dollars going to support the whineing baby called Israel.

Be carefull Iran, or that Global Force For Good will start raining down missles on you all. All at the behest of Israel. America , Israel's bitch since 1948.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

To date the US has used 2 nuclear devices in self defense. Other than that we have wasted more money than people who have died in either of the explosions.

Whether its 1 nuclear weapon or 1,000 nuclear weapons, 1 is 1 to many..

This sums the issue up very nicely...


I guess what you'r saying is that more people would have died if the US didn't use those nukes and your most likely correct on that part.

But do you really see it as self-defence to melt 400.000+ people, many of them children or elder women who definatly wouldnt be any danger to the US? .......400.000 murdered as collateral damage on purpose to create a new level of fear.......what if the situation is reverses and you lost family members as collateral damage from a purposely nuke-attack on a major US city, would it still be ok to you, because...afterall the "enemy" only acted in self-defence?

My definition of selfdefence: Lets say you attack me and i attempt fend you off i execute some level of selfdefence. I presume this would be ok to you right?

If instead of fending of your attack directly, I decide to pull my gun, shoot your mom and indicates to you it might be a good idea for you to bugger off Im not using selfdefence - atleast not in my view.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
The propaganda that Israel and the United States puts forth on a daily basis is sickening. Iran knows that if it used nuclear weapons on Israel it would be levelled in a matter of days. IF..and thats a big if..Iran is developing nuclear weapons on top of its development of nuclear energy, i see it only as a mean for defense as in a "cold war" situation or under the most dire of circumstances. We allow war mongering nations like Israel and North Korea to have nuclear capabilities, why not allow Iran. I am American, but it has come to a point where i am no longer proud of this. There is an astonishing misconception about the Iranian people in the western world.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 



Well the whole purpose of keeping said offical anonymous is for retaliatory purposes, like attempts at assasination and death threats. Would you want your family to have a package delivered to their doorstep that explodes when they open it? Well, neither would i.


That's beyond my point.

There is a "gentlemen's" rule in journalism, and that is 'you never give away your sources'. This is made for several reasons, the first having access to exclusive material that nobody else has, the second being the safety of the person giving the information, and the third is a code of honor that what you say is being given by unknown sources is actually true and not made up. The code of honor relates to the part that you will never disclose the informant, but you still admit that the source is valid, accurate and true.

The problem of this is that many people don't actually have a code of honor of their own, and using random sources without identifying them actually plays against us (the ones that need the information).

There are several mechanisms to safeguard the safety of sources. That's why the White House has a representative that addresses all current issues. He is not a target because he is only a voice, he talks about what is handed to him. Or if a spy finds out that there is a plan to attack someone, the government isn't going to put that spy in front of the public for him to tell what he knows... The Secretary of Defense, as a representative of the armed forces, will make that announcement for him, after analyzing the information.

So, why not make it that way in this case? There is clearly a push by the Israel government into making people rally support for an attack on Iran, claimed to be in self-defense.

I'm not into discussing the truth/false in their allegations, but if you are going to touch a sensitive example like this (Iran seeking WMD's), considering what has happened before (Iraq war, no WMD's), you must be damn sure about what you are saying, or people will automatically doubt you.

If there is an actual threat of Iran having a nuclear weapon, if there is an actual threat of Iran using it against Israel or other countries, then Israel must make a colossal effort into presenting refutal-proof evidence. If they claim they have it, then disclose it! I have serious doubts that even the most skeptic person in this matter will say no if Iran is proven to be lying and conspiring to have a nuke.

I will believe the U.S. gov or Israel if they present solid proof, and I will trust them if they say "we can't disclose who found about this, but here is the proof".

I won't, however, jump into support of yet another Middle East war (a serious one) just because one country, or one government feels a bit of fear from another country, that for all we know, could be telling the truth.


We don't know what info they have, but U.S. military intelligence is second to none.


I would like to split that into two parts:

1- We don't know, but we should. That's how you make important decisions, and the people should be a part of that.
2- The U.S. Intelligence isn't the best in terms of field agents or work being done, but the U.S. does have the largest and most efficient information flow on the planet. Even if they don't find out on their own, they will track the chatter from other people, and achieving the same result in the end. (But yeah, I agree).



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


Well, I'm not saying that Iran isn't going after a nuke. I think that if they weren't, and they were truly honest about their intentions, they wouldn't have played some cards they played during the last decade.

They paint them-selfs as victims of propaganda and a secret agenda from Israel to take over them, allied with other conspiracy theories, but then they act like they are preparing something.

I don't like to judge people on what others say about them, but Iran has actually made an image of them-self's that doesn't go into a positive path. It's a bit frustrating to see that the only reason why the whole Iran issue isn't cleared by now, it's because of the inability of western politics to enforce either side. We are always on this balance of who is right and who is wrong, who is the victim and who is the aggressor, even before anything happens.

A lot of accusations are also being throw against Iran, that they are always doing all sorts of attacks around the world, or at least funding them... But then there is no actual strong proof of that. It's like Israel believes this will end at point C, but they forget to prove point A and B. They are talking about a final goal, without proving everything that comes between. That's where my doubts come from.

If they would prove that Iran is making all these sorts of plays, it wouldn't be that hard to prove that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon. In my opinion.
edit on 13-8-2012 by GarrusVasNormandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 



The same intelligence that found.. or didn't find WMD's?
There are many more, too many to list here.


So humans are okay to make mistakes, because we all do, but organizations that are composed of humans can't?

What about the hundreds, even thousands of cases where the intel actually worked? What about the attacks that you don't even know about, because they were so successful when preventing them?

It's a bit unfair to judge something just by their failures.

Let's not forget that was the great intelligence effort made by western countries that allowed something like the Cuban missiles crisis end without anything bad coming from it.


Most people hated BillyC because he was dismantling the military.
Maybe he knew something we didn't.


Most people love(d) Bill Clinton. The scandal tainted his image of integrity, but his work speaks louder than him. And history is already being fair to him, especially when compared to the president that followed him.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GarrusVasNormandy

Iran steps up nuclear warhead work, Israel media reports (Reuters)


www.reuters.com

Iran has stepped up work to develop a nuclear warhead, Israeli newspapers said on Sunday, citing officials in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government and leaked U.S. intelligence.
(visit the link for the full news article)



How come the news about Iran and the alleged Iran's nuclear program comes always from Israeli media?
edit on 13-8-2012 by Telos because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by cconn487
 



The irony of owning hundreds of the world's most dangerous, destructive weapons pointed all over the globe, while telling other countries they aren't allowed to produce nuclear power sounds is funny.


I don't think it's ironic nor funny.

To me, it's almost like a gun owner being responsible enough to educate and give reason to people who are seeking guns for the wrong reason. Having a gun makes you more responsible than a person who doesn't, just because of experience alone.

And nobody is saying to Iran that they can't have nuclear energy. The U.S. actually aided them in the past for that same goal. What people are saying is that they don't want Iran to have a nuke.


What is also funny is how total disarmament of these weapons from every country is still not an option.

Governments can't balance their checkbooks, yet have claimed the power to control all aspects of nuclear weapons.


It's not an option because nobody can risk being caught off-guard.

Imagine if the U.S. will decide tomorrow that they will dismantle all nuclear warheads. Most people have the opinion that an hour after that dismantlement is done, the U.S. would be attacked by all fronts. One of the reasons why the U.S. has so much respect around the world (to the point nobody even thinks of directly attacking the U.S.) is mostly due to military power, and inside that military power you can find nukes.

If Russia, Pakistan, India, China, North Korea and all other countries with nukes, decide to put them away or handling them to the U.N. to be disabled, I have serious doubts the U.S. wouldn't do the same. The U.S. doesn't need nukes to defend itself, it just needs nukes to defend itself from other countries with nukes.

People often forget that, although the U.S. were the first to have, and use nuclear weapons, that they are the "Lords of the Atom"... But the URSS was actually just a couple of month's behind research since both got hold of the same nazi technology and research, and soon after that we were already in the Cold War, and not having nukes was simply not an option when the soviets were popping them out like candy, trying to place them as close as Cuba.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Mimir
 


World War 2 was as complex and decisive as you can get.

If the Japanese wouldn't have made the mistake of NOT attacking Pearl Harbor while it was still in flames, it was possible it could have been captured and be under japanese control.

Seems just like losing a harbor or military base, but it's far more than that. Due to radius of combat, even the aircraft carriers of that time had a hard-time attacking Japanese forces at the fronts. Losing Pearl Harbor, and not having Midway, would mean the U.S. would lose their ability to have a jump-base to attack Japan, and a front-line to defend U.S. mainland.

The nasty part of this, is that the U.S. would be so occupied with fighting off the Japanese on their own coast, that they would simply not go to Europe to fight the Nazi regime. And it's pretty obvious that all Europe (except possibly URSS), including Great Britain, would fall to Nazi hands. Add to that the fact that the Nazi's wouldn't have the logistics effort of fighting the american forces, and you can just imagine how different the world would be today.

Even if the U.S. managed to keep the Japanese off, they would be isolated in North America, with Nazi's in the Atlantic and Japan on the Pacific.

Considering all this, yes, it was the right call to use nuclear weapons. Sad, but necessary. Otherwise, the war could possibly keep on going.
edit on 13-8-2012 by GarrusVasNormandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Telos
 


I think that's because there is a feeling of urgency in stopping Iran. Israel feels this as a real and imminent threat, being true or not.

While the U.S. has a little more "subtle" ways of doing the same, Israel just opens it's mouth and spews everything, not even considering that they could be telling valuable information. It's always better if your enemy doesn't know what you know, or what you are planning. Israel seems a bit unaware of that.

And one important bit about this piece, is that it actually came from a newspaper that is usually a very nasty critic of the current Israeli government.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by nostromo85

Originally posted by infoseeker26754
Israel, Israel, Israel boy do they complain! Since no body has done anything they have to start another rumor. I have to agree about the NOT having a gun when it comes to Isreal! I just got a FEELING they would start WW3 just for the fun of it and have USA caught in the middle, opps! All of us!

Unless there is some great plan going on, no one backs Isreal they still would do something! For a small bit of land they do cause alot of trouble. I feel for Iran, whats wrong with leave us alone! What does Iran have that people want?

I'll let your mind play with that one. It's not like you want people in YOUR backyard looking in YOUR windows making up stuff that is not there. It happens all the time its just getting worst. And yet most people actually believe it. I think if you start minding your own P&Q the world could be a much better place for ALL of US!


Isreal complain, and rightly so. People have been trying to wipe out the Jews for thousands of years, and now the vast majority of them are penned in on all sides. I think they've got a right to moan if a close nation is developing a weapon to take them out after vowing that they would.

This whole Gun analogy of Iran wanting a "gun" in a "gunfight" is stupid, in that yes, they don't have one, but they've been giving money to their friends to go get armed up and fire on a semi constant basis (I.E. Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel on a constant basis)

And most sheeple on here like to buy into this whole "Hey Iran doesn't attack anyone" rubbish.
edit on 12-8-2012 by nostromo85 because: (no reason given)


Your entire post was complete paranoid speculation. Just like everything Israel moans about.

Paranoid provocative speculation. The nation of Israel has been around less than a century. Keep that in mind before you go off spouting nonsense about Jewish persecution for 'thousands' of years. You sound utterly ridiculous.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy
 



So humans are okay to make mistakes, because we all do, but organizations that are composed of humans can't?

Well, before I retired, if I made a mistake, a job would take a little longer and maybe I would lose time and materials.
When an organization makes a mistake such as oil companies, big pharma, governments, people die alot of them.
So, NO it is not alright to make an oops on that level, that is why we have spies and satellites, and diplomats.


It's a bit unfair to judge something just by their failures.

But what if that is all there is, did Afghanistan or Iraq do 911??
The terrorists were mostly Saudis, we didn't blow up Saudi Arabia.
All we see nowadays is OOPS, no wmd's there OOPS bad intel, those were civillians at a wedding not a militia, OOPS that was a school and not a bomb factory.
None of these things would have happened if the US just stayed home for other countries quarrels.
Something else that might aid is to find out just who is giving us all of this bad intel and stop issuing them checks and weaponry.
Heck, maybe even turn that country into a glass factory.

Let's not forget that was the great intelligence effort made by western countries that allowed something like the Cuban missiles crisis end without anything bad coming from it.

No, it was diplomats and sheer fear of death that stopped this idiots idea.
Not some super secret force that cut the red wire with only 1 second left on the timer.


Most people love(d) Bill Clinton. The scandal tainted his image of integrity, but his work speaks louder than him. And history is already being fair to him, especially when compared to the president that followed him.

I dunno which version of history you are reading but I was alive during the Clinton administration, he was super cool before he was the president because he smoked and blew a mean sax on Arsenio.
But after he got in, the opinion changed alot.
Folks found out about his real estate dealings, weird suicides of his associates, his power hungry wife, (hmm I guess we were definately right about that one), Etc.

The terrorist regime of israel has been screaming about Iranian nukes for YEARS now.
We have no information or reasonable suspicion that they are building a bomb.
Heck, we even apparently have a mole in their program!!
And still no wmd's.
I think some coward terrorists just want the US to beat up the big kid on the block so they can be the new tough guy.
I don't want any part of their campaign for blood, they can do it without my kids, my cash, my bombs!



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 



So, NO it is not alright to make an oops on that level, that is why we have spies and satellites, and diplomats.


It's not alright, but it's impossible to avoid mistakes. The most clear example of human capability is aviation, and even with all the protocols and safety measures, you can't help but to see planes crash. Mistakes and errors happen, it's a fact of life, and it doesn't matter in which level it is, being individual or collective.

And what you say actually plays against your argument. Having more people around a problem doesn't help to avoid mistakes, it actually makes a perfect environment for mistakes to happen, that's why it's important to delegate functions and missions.

Assuming there is a way to always have clear and correct intel, is just unrealistic in our world.


But what if that is all there is, did Afghanistan or Iraq do 911??


No. That's why those are regarded as mistakes today.


The terrorists were mostly Saudis, we didn't blow up Saudi Arabia.


Basically what you are saying is that, if a group of people inside the U.S. rallies up and organizes an inhumane attack against another country, that same country would have the moral bases to attack the U.S. ...

Saudi Arabia wasn't, and isn't a hostile country. Just because the group of people that acted in 9/11 was from SA, doesn't mean the whole country is responsible.

Aren't americans the first ones to complain how they are received in other countries, because of their governments actions? Why do you paint other people by the same brush you complain about?

I'm not defending Saudi Arabia, I think they are fake, two-faced and will be friendly as long the U.S. has the money to give them. But that logic is just wrong.

Politics, especially foreign, aren't linear nor simple to understand. That's why you have diplomats.


All we see nowadays is OOPS, no wmd's there OOPS bad intel, those were civillians at a wedding not a militia, OOPS that was a school and not a bomb factory.


Have you stopped to wonder if it's not actually the "other side" that is getting better in hiding? Their tactics are always involving, and most of the times, those school's and houses, are actually being used as shields to prevent western forces from taking action.

If the western coalitions actually stop making that sort of call, then people who are out there to hurt you and me, will have places where they can do whatever they want. If with this mad chase they are still able to punch some holes in us, can you imagine if they had all the maneuver space they would need?

And why do we assume that all those people are innocent? I mean, if someone in your neighborhood tells you that they weren't to blame for the kg's of coc aine in their house, would you believe them? No. Why? Because you have seen enough cases of people having kids and family inside their houses and having methlabs in the kitchen.

There are mistakes, and there is propaganda. Don't think for a moment that terrorist organizations aren't doing the same type of play.


None of these things would have happened if the US just stayed home for other countries quarrels.


Actually, most of those countries with quarrels ask for U.S. intervention and help. To the point of representatives being received in the White House to tell the President about those issues. Then the President tries to help, and everyone thinks he is an hero, until a bomb falls on the wrong place, or the bombing is portrayed as being in a civilian building, and everyone starts calling him a murderer.

But I agree with parts of that point.


No, it was diplomats and sheer fear of death that stopped this idiots idea.
Not some super secret force that cut the red wire with only 1 second left on the timer.


Yes?... So basically the Kennedy administration found out about the ship carrying nuclear missiles because they had a great sense of smell?

The reason why diplomats were able to do their jobs, was due to the fact that they were receiving intel saying "THAT ship (a cargo ship, by the way) has NUCLEAR MISSILES in it".


I dunno which version of history you are reading but I was alive during the Clinton administration


You are alive now, and you don't understand much about current affairs. Why would you understand back then?


he was super cool before he was the president because he smoked and blew a mean sax on Arsenio.
But after he got in, the opinion changed alot.
Folks found out about his real estate dealings, weird suicides of his associates, his power hungry wife, (hmm I guess we were definately right about that one), Etc.


No, that's your mundane/media manipulated image of him. Clinton actually put in place some tax changes that are still in effect today (example).



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
The plan is a US/Israel takeover of the Middle East and it wont stop until the entire region is under our control. That said, as "snobby American" as this may sound I say go for it. We've given you thousands of yrs to stop fighting each other over a patch of sand and ya cannot seem to do it. So Daddy hasta step in and put ya in the naughty corner.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 



The terrorist regime of israel has been screaming about Iranian nukes for YEARS now.
We have no information or reasonable suspicion that they are building a bomb.


Well, the first argument is a bit weak, since nuclear research actually takes several years, if not decades.

There are a lot of arguments that can be played in favor of Iran, but there are also some that can be played against. For instance, the fact that Iran has purchased hundreds of centrifuge machines, used to enrich uranium. An amount superior to their supposed needs for nuclear energy.

As for the information, it's true. We don't have solid information. That's why I wish there was, to either side.


Heck, we even apparently have a mole in their program!!


That's why I think this whole issue is somewhat annoying. If they have "eyes on the nuclear program", they should have solid proof, either to prove that Iran is or isn't seeking nuclear weapons.

But there is a part of that statement that is a bit incomplete. The U.S. says it has a spy inside the Iran nuclear program, but if Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon, they can have two parallel programs. The same way the US has secret programs for their nukes, and another civil program for nuclear energy.

If the spy is in the nuclear energy program, he can't find out much about a possible nuke. (I'm guessing)


And still no wmd's.


They aren't saying they have nukes. They are saying Iran is trying to develop nukes.

Their reference is based on the nuclear programs of other countries, like Pakistan or India.


I think some coward terrorists just want the US to beat up the big kid on the block so they can be the new tough guy.
I don't want any part of their campaign for blood, they can do it without my kids, my cash, my bombs!


That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it, obviously.

But if you feel like that, just enforce your power by voting in other candidates. Ron Paul comes to mind.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy
 


It appears we do agree on something, there is no proof, other than tech for a nuke reactor.
Yet the terrorist israelis constantly ask the US to bomb them back to the stone age before it is too late.
If they are going to do this, I just ask they do it without my children, my cash and my bombs.
But the terrorists keep the story in the media how we are just about out of time.
If they are gonna set off a powderkeg I cannot do anything about it, what I can do however is teach the terrorist subversion that has murdered US citizens and then covered up.

(Edit)
I have good reason to believe I will be writing in a vote once again.
I cannot vote for the lesser of two idiots.
edit on 13-8-2012 by g146541 because: write in, right on!



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
BBC ON THIS DAY June 7, 1981


1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor
The Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq's capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.

It is the world's first air strike against a nuclear plant.

An undisclosed number of F-15 interceptors and F-16 fighter bombers destroyed the Osirak reactor 18 miles south of Baghdad, on the orders of Prime Minister Menachem Begin.

The army command said all the Israeli planes returned safely.

The 70-megawatt uranium-powered reactor was near completion but had not been stocked with nuclear fuel so there was no danger of a leak, according to sources in the French atomic industry.


At the end of the story, it reported:


The statement said: "We again call upon them to desist from this horrifying, inhuman deed. Under no circumstances will we allow an enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against our people."

The attack took place on a Sunday, they said, to prevent harming the French workers at the site who would have taken the day off.

There have been no reported casualties


HOWEVER, this proved to be hasty...casualties were reported afterward:

From Wiki, cited from Newsweek 152 (19). 1981


Ten Iraqi soldiers and one French civilian were killed in the attack. The civilian killed was engineer Damien Chaussepied, variously described as 24 or 25 years old, who was an employee of Air Liquide and the French governmental agency CEA. In 1981, Israel agreed to pay restitution to Chaussepied's family.


There is also an addendum on the first page I linked to, titled "In Context," that reads thus:


News of the audacious raid did not actually emerge until 24 hours later when Israel made its announcement. Only then did Iraq admit it had happened and express indignation.

One of the pilots involved was Ilan Ramon who trained as Israel's first astronaut but was killed in the Columbia shuttle disaster in 2003.

Two weeks after the Osirak attack Israel admitted it had the capability of developing its own nuclear weapons.

And in 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, a former nuclear technician was found guilty of espionage after he told a British newspaper, the Sunday Times, that Israel was secretly building atomic bombs.

French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac cultivated France's special relationship with Iraq during the 1970s to maintain an influence in a region dominated by Anglo-Saxons and boost trade links with the oil-rich nation.

He led the universal condemnation of Israel's attack on Osirak.

Then, 22 years later - as French president - Mr Chirac was vehemently against the USA and Britain going to war with Iraq over the issue of weapons of mass destruction.


Evidently, not everyone has a short memory:

Washington Post

The Guardian

By contrast, read at Jewish Virtual Library

Including:

The psychology of the Holocaust played an important role in Menachem Begin’s decision making. According to Rafael Eitan, chief of staff at the time of the attack, Begin insisted that he “will not be the man in whose time there will be a second Holocaust.”

It is worth noting that Iran, at that time, also objected Iraq's alleged intentions...which were not supported by any empirical data at the time...Iraq had signed the NPT, also, and had let inspectors in, from what I understand.

ALSO:

Israel maintains a policy known as "nuclear ambiguity" (also known as "nuclear opacity"). Israel has never officially admitted to having nuclear weapons, instead repeating over the years that it would not be the first country to "introduce" nuclear weapons to the Middle East, leaving ambiguity as to whether it means it will not create, will not disclose, will not make first use of the weapons or possibly some other interpretation of the phrase.


Wiki citing US Gov historical documents





new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join